With all the talk about national Democrats like Bill Clinton, Kerry and Edwards "blasting" Bush with their "blistering critiques" you'd think suddenly the donkeys had gotten some back bone. But sure, they can criticize the President's response to Katrina (they're not really worried about a little of the blame falling to Blanco and Nagin - they're "state democrats") but when are they gonna deal with the elephant in the room (so to speak)?
There's a group of Washington Democrats, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman among them, who call themselves "National Security Democrats" (I call them the Pentateuch) and they like to talk about what they perceive to be the Democratic Party's National Security problem. Their basic thinking is that Dems must convince Americans that they are tough enough to defend America (the implied reasoning is that Republican attacks on Dem's fitness to serve have succeeded).
Bayh, an Indiana Senator whose presidential ambitions have been naked to all for years, even went so far as to lecture fellow Democrats in an open letter that was headlined, in part, "No political party deserves to gain or hold power if it can not provide basic security" and challenged Dems "to make winning the war against jihadist extremism the party's first priority".
Forget for a moment that this "me-Republican-tough" strategy has been a losing one for the last two election cycles or that Washington Democrats have failed to make a cogent argument about any national security themes - not just al Qaeda or the war in Iraq, but also defending the borders, transportation safety and general readiness. The strategy has been to ape the Republicans (and disagree with their details) or to sit back and hope everything falls apart. As I've mentioned before, this has been the Dems' true National Security problem - if you're afraid to stand up to Bush and Rove, then how will you handle bin Laden?
Meanwhile, without any leadership from the Democrats, the public turns against the war, stops believing that the President can keep them safe and looks in vain for someone to articulate their sense that America is headed in the wrong direction. And for pols like Evan Bayh, this is the worst of all possible outcomes, as he has set himself up, with his patronizing DLC advice, to be a fauxhawk just at the moment that Americans are deciding that "if we can't trust Republicans to stand up to the weather, how can we trust them to deal with a chemical or biological attack."
So here's my prediction (take it for what you will) and my advice (likewise): If one of these self-proclaimed "National Security Democrats" really wants the nomination, they will need to give the following speech (or some variation thereof):
My fellow Americans,
Three years ago, I voted, along with a number of my
colleagues, to support the President's ultimatum to Iraq.
I did this not only because I believed that America, in the
aftermath of September 11, needed to stand strong and
united against anyone who sought to harm us, but also
because I believed then that the Senate should give the
President every tool in its arsenal if needed to protect the
country. Put simply, my inclination was that President
Bush, as Commander-in-Chief, deserved the benefit of
the doubt.
For the past three years, despite all that has gone wrong
in Iraq, I have continued to call on America to stay the
course, to resist the desire to withdraw our troops until a
stable Iraq, a stable region, had emerged. Despite my
deep disagreements with the execution of the war, I
argued, not unlike the administration, that it would be
inappropriate to simply "cut & run".
I am here now to say publicly that I was wrong. Wrong
to believe the administration's assurances of WMD
stockpiles. Wrong not to question their claims that our
troops would be greeted as liberators and wrong not to
challenge their theory that it would take weeks not
months. Wrong to hold on to the hope that an
administration that had so bungled and misjudged
troops levels and the strength of the insurgents -
mistakes that continue to this day - could somehow do
an about-face and begin to properly manage the training
of Iraqi security and police. Wrong not to realize that
this administration would be incapable of bringing the
warring factions of Iraq together to forge a constitution
that would truly guarantee the rights of women and
children. Wrong to trust the Secretary of Defense when
he assured us that our smart bombs would make
collateral damage almost non-existent. Wrong, finally,
to give George W. Bush or anyone in this current
administration, the benefit of the doubt.
As someone who believes in taking a moderate course,
who wants to work with those across the aisle, it has
taken me time to reach this point. I have attempted a
middle course, supportive generally of our actions in
the region while challenging the very real problems that
have been created. But, in light of everything we have
seen over the past few months, from the failure of the
president to keep his word on firing anyone who leaked
the name of a CIA operative, to the utter incompetence
shown in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, to the
ongoing chaos in Iraq, I have come to the realization
that in this case, the middle road was no road at all.
It was a gulley, surrounded by two ever increasingly
polarized points of view. On one side, the President
and his administration, arrogantly defiant and unwilling
to hear or deliver bad news. On the other, a new
majority of Americans who have realized that the ends
did not justify the means, that our fight against terror
was not helped by our actions in Iraq, that "fighting them
over there instead of over here" is just an empty slogan.
In speaking today, I may be criticized for my late
conversion. Some, even those on my own side, may
say, "too little, too late". But I believe believe that we
have seen the consequences when our leaders refuse
to acknowledge reality, when they refuse to take
mistakes and when they accept responsibility only
begrudgingly, and I am willing to take my lumps if it
leads to a smarter foreign policy, a safer America and
the swift return home of our men and women in uniform.
There are real challenges facing us. And keeping
America safe involves more than a show of muscle.
We need federal agencies like FEMA, Homeland Security,
the FAA, Border Patrol, Customs and Coast Guard
operating at the highest level of efficiency to prevent
and/or respond to a national crisis. We need to allocate
our homeland security resources to give preference to
high-density areas most likely targeted by terrorists or
most difficult to secure in event of a disaster. We need
to fast-track through Congress the recommendations of
the independent 9/11 Commission. Finally, and it's
amazing to have to say this four years past, but we need
a national security policy that is based in intelligence,
based in reality, unafraid to face up to bad news and
willing to call a mistake for what it is.
My vote on Iraq was a mistake. I promise today that I
will work doubly hard not to make a similar mistake
in the future.
I'm not, by the way, holding my breath.
Comments